Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 01:24PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Interesting interpretation there :pac:

Well if someone who is married (presumably in a monogamous marriage), says that the reason they didn't have sex with someone else, was because they are just not interested - rather than the fact that they have a wife - then that naturally implies they might have sex with someone else if they were interested.

So - why did you say you didn't go with her, because you weren't interested, instead of because you are married?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm shocked that you would even suggest such a thing... :eek:

It's a question, not a suggestion. I'll take that reply as dodging the question as well: Does your wife have good reason not to trust you (as you said she doesn't, in your own words) - do or would you cheat on her?

Shanotheslayer · 27-07-2015 01:25PM

Found out a while ago my GF at the time was cheating on me.The fella who it was with also had a GF, so I told her.

Barely There · 27-07-2015 01:33PM

I wouldn't.

Strangers and their lives hold no interest for me.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 01:42PM

It's a bit personal to be acting rather accusing towards someone as regards whether or not they'd cheat on their wife.

Mind you, I read that as "he wasn't interested" because he's got a wife that he presumably IS interested in (since he married her).

Playboy · 27-07-2015 01:46PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So you cite three reasons not to do it..

1) The other person has cheated before.

Well, then my letting that person know will show them that their partner has a) now got even and b) is a hypocrite if they have whinged about them cheating.

Either way, I am just being a good Samaritan.

2) The person is a victim of abuse.

Victim of abuse and their solution is to cheat?

Nah, not buying that one.

3) They could have an open relationship.

Fine, well then they can laugh about some stranger informing on one of them to the other so.

Huh? I also said there could be many other reasons. The point is that relationships are complicated and its rare that any case of cheating is just a cut and dry scenario of one nice person being taken advantage by a scumbag. Life is rarely black and white and people dont need do-gooders sticking their nose in where it isnt needed or requested. Relationships have a way of working these issues out in their own time.

Personally if I was being cheated on I wouldn't want the involvement of some stranger. My problems are my own, keep your nose out of it unless I state otherwise.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 01:48PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well if someone who is married (presumably in a monogamous marriage), says that the reason they didn't have sex with someone else, was because they are just not interested - rather than the fact that they have a wife - then that naturally implies they might have sex with someone else if they were interested.

So - why did you say you didn't go with her, because you weren't interested, instead of because you are married?

What do you mean "rather than the fact they have a wife"? Obviously if I have a wife it's an element in why I wouldn't be interested in doing anything with her. You said it yourself that you presume I'm in a monogamous marriage, so why would you not then assume in that context that was perhaps the reason I wasn't interested?

It's a question, not a suggestion. I'll take that reply as dodging the question as well: Does your wife have good reason not to trust you (as you said she doesn't, in your own words) - do or would you cheat on her?

Remember I talked about that whole good judgement coming from experience?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 27-07-2015 02:12PM

arayess wrote: »

true but if it is a stranger do you really care?

Give them the knowledge (in good faith) and allow them process it as they see fit?

I don't see how giving somebody the information is a bad thing.

Nothing got to do with me, they can catch the clap for all I care.
Their relationship, their business

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 02:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah, not a robot or anything, but basically from my perspective - you see enough sh1t and somehow cheating just isn't that big a deal any more. We're talking here about interfering in a complete strangers relationship and me personally I just wouldn't do that without being willing to go all in. I wouldn't just drop that bomb on someone and walk away. I couldn't do that. If I wasn't prepared to go all in, then I stay the hell out and mind my own business.

What if you were walking up the road and saw a man hitting a woman, pushing her into a doorway and telling her he was sick of putting up with crap all these years and looked like he was going to slap her. Would you intervene? I'm gonna presume you would, for her safety, but why is it that some people are only willing to do something which prevents physical abuse in a relationship, but yet not emotional abuse. There is a very very good chance that having your eyes opened to the fact that you are being led up the garden path will result in that person making better decisions about that relationship and perhaps not spend the rest of their lives wasting their time.

Well I mean they're making a judgement in the sense that they're judging my OH as this 'terrible person' and they need to let me know. Eesh, I'll be honest Nacho, I could never stand do-gooders like that. I mean, I'm all for someone helping out if someone comes to them for help, and often people come to me for help without judgement, but these people that inject themselves into other people's relationships because that person's behaviour offends their morality... on balance, I have less time for "morally righteous" types than I do for cheaters tbh.

So. the guy at the very end of this clip. You would prefer a lying cheat over him? You can't be serious. The man is a legend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB3PA9iyuLQ

Nah, that's just it really for me. I don't think I'm "better" than anyone else. I know myself I've done some terrible things in my life, so I'm not going to judge someone cheating too harshly, it'd depend on the circumstances really, but in the case of a complete stranger - I know nothing about them, I don't know what's motivating their decision to cheat, I don't know whether their partner is just turning a blind eye and would be humiliated by me pointing out that his OH is a bit flighty! :pac:

The risk of humiliating someone momentarily would be worth that risk imo. It's certainly not a good reason to turn a blind eye on someone potentially having their life ruined..

I don't think fear or doubt = lack of love either btw, but it does indicate a lack of trust. For instance, I know my wife loves me, but I also know she doesn't trust me as far as she could throw me!

Fine, but you implied it earlier. I don't think someone checking a phone after being told something like what happened at that baseball game would mean they didn't love their partner. People are only human. You say that you wouldn't pay any attention to being informed of such a thing, but don't you thing the people being cheated on in the video scenarios would be idiots if they didn't at least take some heed of what the customers were saying? I mean, love is one thing, burying your head in the sand and believing strangers are just being malicious for no good reason is quite another.

Kinda reminds me of a situation I was in a couple of months back. I'm friends with a couple who were due to be married a month later, and I'd known them both a few years. This particular night anyway his girlfriend shall we say, made her intentions pretty clear as to what she wanted to happen between myself and herself. I basically told her I wasn't interested. I wasn't going to ruin her life and go running to her boyfriend telling him that his girlfriend is flighty and all the rest of it. It turns out since that it was just pre-wedding jitters and all the rest of it and I don't think she really ever actually wanted to cheat in the first place really, good catholic girl like her doing something like that... tsk! :pac:

Seriously though, yes, she is indeed one of those "morally righteous" types in other respects, but that's not the reason I wouldn't do anything with her, I simply wasn't interested is all.

You should have told him. She will cheat eventually. Only a matter of time. If my mate's fiance tried to have sex with me a few weeks before their wedding. He would know withing 24 hours. Not a hope I would keep that from him. What would you say in five years, an affair and a couple of kids down the road if he came round one night and asked you if it was true that his wife came on to you a few weeks before they got married and wanted to know why you didn't tell him?

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 02:21PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean "rather than the fact they have a wife"? Obviously if I have a wife it's an element in why I wouldn't be interested in doing anything with her. You said it yourself that you presume I'm in a monogamous marriage, so why would you not then assume in that context that was perhaps the reason I wasn't interested?

Well obviously people who are married cheat too, so if you emphasize 'not being interested' rather than 'being married' when deciding not to have sex with someone else, and explicitly say your wife doesn't trust you, then there's no reason to assume you meant being married.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

It's a question, not a suggestion. I'll take that reply as dodging the question as well: Does your wife have good reason not to trust you (as you said she doesn't, in your own words) - do or would you cheat on her?

Remember I talked about that whole good judgement coming from experience?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions

So this seems to be implying, that your wife has good judgement in not trusting you (in regards to cheating), based on her past experience.

I think any poster reading over that, would probably come to the same conclusions as well - though I'd be open to hearing what other posters think that was meant to imply - I can't see any other interpretation.

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 02:25PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Nothing got to do with me, they can catch the clap for all I care.
Their relationship, their business

If we know someone is getting abused in a relationship, almost all of use would try and help.

So, the 'it's their relationship, their business' line is really just a nice soundbite and ultimately, a pretty hollow one.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 27-07-2015 02:27PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If we know someone is getting abused in a relationship, almost all of use would try and help.

So, the 'it's their relationship, their business' line is really just a nice soundbite. but ultimately, it's a pretty hollow one.

well just have to agree to disagree

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 02:53PM

Playboy wrote: »

Life is rarely black and white and people dont need do-gooders sticking their nose in where it isnt needed or requested.

Oh but sometimes they do.

Relationships have a way of working these issues out in their own time.

Yeah, maybe they get caught red handed or someone ends up being chased with a golf club resulting in them crashing their car (Tiger) or they have their penis chopped off or people end up dead.

Nah, I'm sticking with early intervention is the way to go.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 02:56PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What if you were walking up the road and saw a man hitting a woman, pushing her into a doorway and telling her he was sick of putting up with crap all these years and looked like he was going to slap her. Would you intervene? I'm gonna presume you would, for her safety, but why is it that some people are only willing to do something which prevents physical abuse in a relationship, but yet not emotional abuse. There is a very very good chance that having your eyes opened to the fact that you are being led up the garden path will result in that person making better decisions about that relationship and perhaps not spend the rest of their lives wasting their time.

It's a pretty good comparison alright, except for the fact that physical abuse puts a person's life in more immediate danger, whereas emotional abuse isn't immediately life threatening.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So. the guy at the very end of this clip. You would prefer a lying cheat over him? You can't be serious. The man is a legend.

Come on now, I wouldn't 'prefer' one over the other, I'm just saying I'd have less time for someone who sees it as their right to play the moral guardian in someone else's relationship than I would someone who isn't exactly a beacon of morality :pac:

"High and mightys" wreck my bulb Nacho tbh, they talk about empathy and all the rest of it, and yet if someone does anything that falls below their moral standards, their empathy doesn't be long drying up. It really does come across as one standard for them, and another for others. I'm more of a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kinda guy.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The risk of humiliating someone momentarily would be worth that risk imo. It's certainly not a good reason to turn a blind eye on someone potentially having their life ruined..

Can't say that's been my experience tbh, but I understand why that's the ideal. As you say there is that potential of someone having their life ruined by not knowing, and then from my perspective, there's that same potential for many lives to be ruined by informing the person that their OH is playing away. It's a difficult balancing act from my perspective and I wouldn't just wade in there and drop that bomb.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Fine, but you implied it earlier. I don't think someone checking a phone after being told something like what happened at that baseball game would mean they didn't love their partner. People are only human. You say that you wouldn't pay any attention to being informed of such a thing, but don't you thing the people being cheated on in the video scenarios would be idiots if they didn't at least take some heed of what the customers were saying? I mean, love is one thing, burying your head in the sand and believing strangers are just being malicious for no good reason is quite another.

You keep missing what I'm saying here - I'm saying that of course you can be in love with someone, it's not like a switch you can just turn off, but the minute you doubt them, the minute you don't trust them, that's when you should walk away, for your own mental health as well as anything else.

(I was joking earlier btw when I said my wife doesn't trust me as far as she could throw me, of course she does, but it's difficult to convey what's meant as a light hearted comment online sometimes)

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You should have told him. She will cheat eventually. Only a matter of time. If my mate's fiance tried to have sex with me a few weeks before their wedding. He would know withing 24 hours. Not a hope I would keep that from him. What would you say in five years, an affair and a couple of kids down the road if he came round one night and asked you if it was true that his wife came on to you a few weeks before they got married and wanted to know why you didn't tell him?

That's the thing Nacho, I don't know whether she will or she won't, but my judgement leads me to believe that it was simply a moment of weakness, I'm not gonna see her crucified for it. If he asks me in five years time I still won't say anything to him. I'm just not someone who pushes someone's head under when they're already up to their neck in sh1t.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 03:03PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well obviously people who are married cheat too, so if you emphasize 'not being interested' rather than 'being married' when deciding not to have sex with someone else, and explicitly say your wife doesn't trust you, then there's no reason to assume you meant being married.

As I said - interesting interpretation there

So this seems to be implying, that your wife has good judgement in not trusting you (in regards to cheating), based on her past experience.

I think any poster reading over that, would probably come to the same conclusions as well - though I'd be open to hearing what other posters think that was meant to imply - I can't see any other interpretation.

Well you're the person doing the implying, but I'll make it clearer for you -

Experience has taught me that sometimes it's better to let people draw their own conclusions, they've usually made up their minds already anyway and are judging accordingly, and so no matter how much justification you offer them, they'll never be satisfied.

Playboy · 27-07-2015 03:28PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh but sometimes they do.

Yeah, maybe they get caught red handed or someone ends up being chased with a golf club resulting in them crashing their car (Tiger) or they have their penis chopped off or people end up dead.

Nah, I'm sticking with early intervention is the way to go.

The absolute arrogance of this astounds me. I cant get over how some people feel entitled to involve themselves in a strangers personal affairs (excuse the pun). Just because you dont mind being told something like this by a stranger doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. Your heart might be in the right place as you genuinely think you are helping someone but really it is an invasion of someone else's privacy. These issues are extremely complex and have huge potential to be embarrassing and humiliating to the victim. You also have no idea what kind of impact you could have... marriage breaking up with kids caught in the middle, violence, suicide etc. It's very gung-ho to think you can just throw a grenade and walk away. I would be very very slow to get involved in this type of scenario even with close friends or relatives... its always a disaster that will blow up in your face.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 03:38PM

Playboy wrote: »

The absolute arrogance of this astounds me. I cant get over how some people feel entitled to involve themselves in a strangers personal affairs (excuse the pun). Just because you dont mind been told something like this by a stranger doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. Your heart might be in the right place as you genuinely think you are helping someone but really it is an invasion of someone else's privacy. This issues are extremely complex and have huge potential to be embarrassing and humiliating to the victim. You also have no idea what kind of impact you could have... marriage breaking up with kids caught in the middle, violence, suicide etc. It's very gung-ho to think you can just throw a grenade and walk away. I would be very very slow to get involved in this type of scenario even with close friends or relatives... its always a disaster that will blow up in your face.

This has come up many times: It's not for you to determine whether informing is an unwelcome intrusion, it is up to the person being cheated on to decide whether it is or not.

Every. Single. Point. you've made there, has been hashed out at least 3-4 times in the thread already.

There's also a pretty simple solution to not knowing if someone would welcome being informed: Just ask them if they'd want to be informed if they were being cheated on.

Playboy · 27-07-2015 04:00PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This has come up many times: It's not for you to determine whether informing is an unwelcome intrusion, it is up to the person being cheated on to decide whether it is or not.

Every. Single. Point. you've made there, has been hashed out at least 3-4 times in the thread already.

There's also a pretty simple solution to not knowing if someone would welcome being informed: Just ask them if they'd want to be informed if they were being cheated on.

Lol by asking them you have already informed them. How can you approach a stranger for their views on being informed by a stranger if their partner is cheating on them without implicitly implying that that is the case? So not really a simple solution is it, it is a patently ridiculous solution.

I just don't get why people are so reckless, well intentioned or not. Since when has a persons private issues become fair game for public involvement? The halo polishing going on in this thread is absurd and frankly immature.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 04:33PM

Playboy wrote: »

The absolute arrogance of this astounds me. I cant get over how some people feel entitled to involve themselves in a strangers personal affairs (excuse the pun).

I think to be fair, Nacho's opinion isn't fuelled by arrogance, but rather what he feels is the right thing to do in that situation. I can certainly understand that much, a hell of a lot more than I can understand this -

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This has come up many times: It's not for you to determine whether informing is an unwelcome intrusion, it is up to the person being cheated on to decide whether it is or not.

A person who sees it as their right to play the moral arbiter in other people's relationships, without any consideration as to whether their intrusion would be welcome or not. They're just going to do it anyway and the consequences of their actions aren't their problem. That's the epitome of arrogance IMO.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 04:42PM

Playboy wrote: »

Lol by asking them you have already informed them. How can you approach a stranger for their views on being informed by a stranger if their partner is cheating on them without implicitly implying that that is the case? So not really a simple solution is it, it is a patently ridiculous solution.

I just don't get why people are so reckless, well intentioned or not. Since when has a persons private issues become fair game for public involvement? The halo polishing going on in this thread is absurd and frankly immature.

No, if you ask them you're not informing them of anything. If you're blunt about it (rather than being smart and trying to disguise it as just part of conversation), they might surmise that you suspect their partner, and they can tell you to mind your own business - or they can give you the go-ahead to tell them.

So it's a pretty simple solution - you don't have to disclose anything, and if your input is unwelcome, they can tell you to bugger off.

Again - it's not for you to say that public involvement is unwelcome, it's solely up to the person being cheated on, to say whether it is or isn't welcome.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 04:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A person who sees it as their right to play the moral arbiter in other people's relationships, without any consideration as to whether their intrusion would be welcome or not. They're just going to do it anyway and the consequences of their actions aren't their problem. That's the epitome of arrogance IMO.

It's the epitome of arrogance to assume that every case of informing is an unwelcome interference in other peoples relationships (especially given that many people have explicitly said they'd want to be told), and that the only way of informing, involves not caring whether that is welcome or not.

There are pretty simple means of determining whether it would be welcome or not, which override all the concerns mentioned.

Playboy · 27-07-2015 04:54PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, if you ask them you're not informing them of anything. If you're blunt about it (rather than being smart and trying to disguise it as just part of conversation), they might surmise that you suspect their partner, and they can tell you to mind your own business - or they can give you the go-ahead to tell them.

So it's a pretty simple solution - you don't have to disclose anything, and if your input is unwelcome, they can tell you to bugger off.

Again - it's not for you to say that public involvement is unwelcome, it's solely up to the person being cheated on, to say whether it is or isn't welcome.

I'm sorry but that is naive in the extreme. How are you going to initiate a conversation with a total stranger and then drop a bomb like that into it. Of course the alarm bells will go off, you might as well just tell them if you are going to go that far.

smash · 27-07-2015 04:55PM

I hope the husband dumps his wife and then sues these two chicks for openly embarrassing him and causing distress.

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 04:58PM

Playboy wrote: »

Just because you dont mind being told something like this by a stranger doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.

Strawman nonsense. I never said everyone would want to be told. Evidently, they wouldn't.

Your heart might be in the right place as you genuinely think you are helping someone but really it is an invasion of someone else's privacy.

So is stopping someone getting physically abused. Quite often that person intervening gets assaulted, sometimes even by the victim. So, why do people do it? Cause they feel it is worth it, given the circumstances.

These issues are extremely complex and have huge potential to be embarrassing and humiliating to the victim. You also have no idea what kind of impact you could have... marriage breaking up with kids caught in the middle, violence, suicide etc.

This argument has been made a thousand times on the thread. Maybe read it.

None of these things should mean not telling a person that you know that their partner is cheating on them. None. Some of the things you suggest are rare. As rare as some the examples I have posted, in retort, regarding the chopping off of a man's penis, and murder.. so why should the rare examples you cite, trump mine? They shouldn't, obviously.

It's very gung-ho to think you can just throw a grenade and walk away. I would be very very slow to get involved in this type of scenario even with close friends or relatives... its always a disaster that will blow up in your face.

The truth will out, and the quicker the better, before people waste their lives on someone that isn't worth it, or gets seriously hurt. I can't think of one situation that I know of personally where it would have been better if the partner had not found out their OH was cheating on them. Any shake up it will cause, will be for the best, in the long run.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 05:03PM

Playboy wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is naive in the extreme. How are you going to initiate a conversation with a total stranger and then drop a bomb like that into it. Of course the alarm bells will go off, you might as well just tell them if you are going to go that far.

There's nothing naive about it, you don't need to care if they think you suspect something, you haven't informed them of anything - you're asking them if they'd want to know, if their partner was cheating on them.

So what if you set off alarm bells? You're not informing them of anything, and if you're smart about it, you can flimsily disguise it enough to appear like just random conversation.

You can be as tactless/blunt as you like about the question - you're not informing them of anything.

It's a perfectly good/simple way, of finding out if it's ok to inform someone of cheating, before informing them.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 05:11PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's the epitome of arrogance to assume that every case of informing is an unwelcome interference in other peoples relationships (especially given that many people have explicitly said they'd want to be told), and that the only way of informing, involves not caring whether that is welcome or not.

There are pretty simple means of determining whether it would be welcome or not, which override all the concerns mentioned.

People welcome the intervention of a complete stranger in their relationship to tell them that their partner is cheating? Really?

You're going to tell them anyway because as you said yourself - you feel it's up to them to decide if your intrusion is unwelcome, so in order for that to be determined, you're going to interfere first and then leave and let them deal with the consequences.

You don't seem to give any thought at all to the fact that your interference may be unwelcome, you're making that decision for them, based on your own moral standards.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 05:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People welcome the intervention of a complete stranger in their relationship to tell them that their partner is cheating? Really?

You're going to tell them anyway because as you said yourself - you feel it's up to them to decide if your intrusion is unwelcome, so in order for that to be determined, you're going to interfere first and then leave and let them deal with the consequences.

You don't seem to give any thought at all to the fact that your interference may be unwelcome, you're making that decision for them, based on your own moral standards.

As I said in the last number of posts, you don't have to inform anyone to find out if informing is welcome or not - so there is no interference in the relationship through finding that out.

You don't have to interfere with someones relationship, to find out if they would welcome being informed of their partner cheating.

zeffabelli · 27-07-2015 05:38PM

Playboy wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is naive in the extreme. How are you going to initiate a conversation with a total stranger and then drop a bomb like that into it. Of course the alarm bells will go off, you might as well just tell them if you are going to go that far.

Oh you can do that just like you can squeeze toothpaste back into the tube or unring a bell.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 05:39PM

Interfering in someone getting beaten up, no matter who by, is not the same thing as informing someone they're being cheated on. Again, it's a false analogy.

One is breaking a social contract, the other is breaking the law.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 05:40PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I said in the last number of posts, you don't have to inform anyone to find out if informing is welcome or not - so there is no interference in the relationship through finding that out.

You don't have to interfere with someones relationship, to find out if they would welcome being informed of their partner cheating.

We're just descending into daftness now. How does that work?

"Hello stranger, would you like me to tell you that your partner is cheating on you?"

What would you do if I said "Fcuk off... weirdo!", because that's the most likely response I can think of if I were presented with that question by a complete stranger. Would you still feel it was your moral duty to inform me that you know my partner is cheating on me?

I've seen it done out of spite alright, never seen it done with any altruistic motives in mind.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 06:05PM

I can, quite honestly, see it being done with altruistic intentions. Whatever about our disagreements in this thread, I certainly feel that the people arguing pro-telling feel it's the morally correct and altruistic thing to do. I don't see it being as black and white as "It's the right thing to do/It's the wrong thing to do", it's all down to the specific circumstances we're involved in, our certainty, and whether we reckon it's right at the time.

At the moment, taking the specific circs as in the OP's post, I wouldn't be reading someone's texting over their shoulder anyway, so I'd never find out about it. And if I somehow -did-, I wouldn't be adding to my own wrongs by trying to address a wrong that I found out about..uh...in a wrong way.

We're taking it that we're certain about our information, so that's sorted.

After that, it's a judgement call, and unremarkably, that's where we really vary.

Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

Comments